ISCR Case 12-04541.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-04541.h1

deniedJul 31, 2013· Hon. Paul J. Mason· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and defense contractor, originally from India, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to extensive family ties and financial interests in India. The applicant's mother, sister, brother-in-law, aunts, uncle, cousin, and nephew are all citizens and residents of India. The applicant maintains weekly contact with his mother and sister, who live together, and has an Indian bank account and owns an apartment in India valued at approximately $155,000.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's multiple contacts with an official from the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C., in 2008, including meetings in the U.S. and extended contact in India. While these interactions were employer-funded and followed company protocol, the judge determined that the cumulative weight of these connections, combined with the geopolitical context, created an unacceptable risk of foreign influence.

Despite the applicant's mother having no ties to a foreign government or military, and the applicant's sister also lacking such ties, the judge found that the immediate and extended family connections, frequent communications, and financial holdings in India presented a potential conflict of interest with U.S. obligations. Consequently, the security clearance application was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has immediate and extended family members who are citizens and residents of India, creating a potential for foreign influence.
The applicant's frequent contact with family members in India, including weekly and bi-weekly communications, was deemed a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
The applicant owns property in India and maintains a bank account there, which contributes to the potential conflict of interest with U.S. obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 7(e)raisedSubstantial Financial Interest in a Foreign Country

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's strong ties to family in India were not deemed unlikely to create a conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedMinimal Conflict of Interest Due to Loyalty to U.S.The applicant's relationships were considered strong enough to pose a potential conflict.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant's contact was frequent and significant.
AG ¶ 8(f)rejectedRoutine Nature of Foreign Financial InterestsThe applicant's ownership of property and bank account in India was significant.

Key Rule Quoted

“The mere possession of ties and contacts with a family member in a foreign country is not disqualifying under Guideline B.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 14, 2013
Answer filedMar 22, 2013
Hearing heldMay 23, 2013
Decision dateJul 31, 2013

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Heightened Risk of Foreign Exploitation From Familial Connections
Impact of Foreign Financial Interests on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant’s mother is 80 years old and is a citizen and resident of India. She has never been employed. She suffers from diabetes and cannot travel. Applicant used to write monthly letters to her, but now telephones her about once a week. She has no ties to a foreign government or military. One of the reasons Applicant maintains the Indian bank account is to have funds immediately available if his mother becomes ill.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s sister and her husband (Applicant’s brother-in-law), citizens and residents of India, live with Applicant’s mother. Applicant’s sister (SOR 1.b) is a public high school education teacher. Because they live together, Applicant speaks as frequently to his sister as he does to his mother and sees her every time Applicant and his family travel to India. She does not have any ties to a foreign government or military.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.c	Applicant’s brother-in-law (SOR 1.c), a retired pilot of an Indian civilian aviation agency, teaches flying lessons for a private company. Applicant characterized his contact as distant because his brother-in-law has a hearing problem. He has only seen his brother-in-law during trips to India. Applicant could not understand why he indicated in his e-QIP that his contact was more than 15 times a year.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.d	Applicant’s aunts, uncle, cousin, and nephew are resident citizens of India.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.e	Applicant implicitly admitted he has an Indian bank account, but denied the amount was always $4,000.	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—
1.f	Applicant admitted he owns an apartment in India valued at about $155,000.	Against Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—
1.g	Applicant’s multiple contacts with individuals of the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. In June 2008, Applicant met Official (A) who was an attache to a defense research organization at the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. Official A, a resident citizen of India, was in the United States to investigate business opportunities for unclassified projects. In September 2008, Applicant had one additional meeting with Official A to discuss other business opportunities. The activity with Official A was funded by Applicant’s employer and Applicant followed proper protocol in compliance with his employer’s communication and coordination policies. In November and December 2008, Applicant had continuous contact with Official A for about 25 days in India. Applicant recalled indicating that he considered Official A to be a business associate. Applicant did not consider Official A to be a friend as the November 2011 affidavit indicates. Though his affidavit states that he visited Official A one other time for a few hours when Applicant was lodging in a hotel in India, Applicant could not remember whether the visit occurred during or after 2008.	For Applicant	Foreign Government Contact Business or Professional Associate GOVT-AFFILIATED	India	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s mother is 80 years old and is a citizen and resident of India. She has never been employed. She suffers from diabetes and cannot travel. Applicant used to write monthly letters to her, but now telephones her about once a week. She has no ties to a foreign government or military. One of the reasons Applicant maintains the Indian bank account is to have funds immediately available if his mother becomes ill.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.b

Applicant’s sister and her husband (Applicant’s brother-in-law), citizens and residents of India, live with Applicant’s mother. Applicant’s sister (SOR 1.b) is a public high school education teacher. Because they live together, Applicant speaks as frequently to his sister as he does to his mother and sees her every time Applicant and his family travel to India. She does not have any ties to a foreign government or military.

Against Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.c

Applicant’s brother-in-law (SOR 1.c), a retired pilot of an Indian civilian aviation agency, teaches flying lessons for a private company. Applicant characterized his contact as distant because his brother-in-law has a hearing problem. He has only seen his brother-in-law during trips to India. Applicant could not understand why he indicated in his e-QIP that his contact was more than 15 times a year.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.d

Applicant’s aunts, uncle, cousin, and nephew are resident citizens of India.

Against Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.e

Applicant implicitly admitted he has an Indian bank account, but denied the amount was always $4,000.

Against Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

1.f

Applicant admitted he owns an apartment in India valued at about $155,000.

Against Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

1.g

Applicant’s multiple contacts with individuals of the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. In June 2008, Applicant met Official (A) who was an attache to a defense research organization at the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. Official A, a resident citizen of India, was in the United States to investigate business opportunities for unclassified projects. In September 2008, Applicant had one additional meeting with Official A to discuss other business opportunities. The activity with Official A was funded by Applicant’s employer and Applicant followed proper protocol in compliance with his employer’s communication and coordination policies. In November and December 2008, Applicant had continuous contact with Official A for about 25 days in India. Applicant recalled indicating that he considered Official A to be a business associate. Applicant did not consider Official A to be a friend as the November 2011 affidavit indicates. Though his affidavit states that he visited Official A one other time for a few hours when Applicant was lodging in a hotel in India, Applicant could not remember whether the visit occurred during or after 2008.

For Applicant

Foreign Government Contact

Business or Professional Associate

GOVT-AFFILIATED

India

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES